In the US, 38 states, plus the District of Columbia, require only one participant in a conversation to give consent to recording said convo. That means that if only the person recording it consents, the recording is legal. The other twelve states require all parties to a conversation to consent to being recorded, including California, FL's state of residence. I'm not sure how these laws are applied in the case of one participant being in a "single-party" state and the (non-consenting) participant being in an "all-party" state, but the federal law is single-party, so in a federal investigation the law may default to that. More details here:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html
All of which means Landis is possibly (or even probably) in the clear regarding any of his alleged recordings. In the case of any of these recordings involving one or both parties being out of the US, it may be illegal, but Flandis hasn't exactly shown any inclination to answer a foreign warrant or summons to appear (France, etc.), so I doubt he's sweating bullets over that either.
I know making up facts is fun, but next time try picking something that takes more than two minutes to verify.